This article considers whether an approach to the rights of nature (RoN) that reproduces rights and legal personality (which we will call the Extension Model) can achieve the goal of profoundly transforming our relationship with nature. The paper argues, first, that some of the ways in which Ecuador and New Zealand have implemented RoN suggest that the Extension Model carries an in-built risk of duplicating existing frameworks of subordination and objectification of nature. Second, the paper explores alternative forms of constitutional organisation to materialise RoN's objectives: the All-Encompassing Model, where the preservation of nature would become the governing principle of the constitutional order; and the Co-Dependence Model, which would require awarding nature and humans equal consideration to ensure their mutual self-preservation. Overall, the paper shows that the recognition of rights or legal personality should not act as a conversation stopper; and that critical inquiries on how to prompt RoN's pursued paradigm shift need to be continued.